| Demian MN, et al.(17)
|
Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) |
It evaluates skills necessary for health literacy: feeling understood and supported by healthcare providers; management of one’s health; social support for health; navigating the healthcare system; understanding health information well enough to know what to do regarding health. Classification: 44 items, organized into nine domains, each one with four to six levels of agreement in a Likert scale. Higher scores indicate a higher health literacy level. |
Cronbach’s alpha from 0.77 to 0.90 |
| Dodson S, et al.(18)
|
| Lambert K, et al.(19)
|
Health Literacy Management Scale (HeLMS) |
It evaluates skills necessary for health literacy: patients’ attitudes and capacity to be proactive regarding their health; understanding of health information; social support; socioeconomic considerations for the access to healthcare services; accessing general practice healthcare services; communication with health professionals; and using health information. Classification: 29 items, organized into eight domains. The answers are scored in a 5-point Likert scale and dichotomized into no difficulty (score equal to 5 in the scale) and any difficulty level (score varying from 1 to 4 in the scale). Higher scores indicate a higher health literacy level. |
Cronbach’s alpha from 0.82 to 0.89 |
| Chiu CH, et al.(20)
|
Health literacy in Chinese |
It has 52 items, organized into two sections: health literacy (categorized into seven literacy constructs: functional, communicative, interactive, critical, basic health knowledge, advanced health knowledge, and patient safety) and demographic data. Classification: 1 point per correct answer in multiple-choice questions, with minimum and maximum scores of 0 and 26 points, respectively. Higher scores indicate a higher health literacy level. |
Cronbach’s alpha ≅ 0.81 |
| Cavanaugh KL, et al.(21)
|
Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS) |
It consists of three questions that evaluate patients’ self-confidence, the frequency with which they need help to read documents related to their health, and the understanding they have of their health condition. Classification: Each question can receive a maximum score of 5 points and a minimum score of 1 point. The scores of the three questions are summed to produce a total score from 3 to 15 points, with a score ranging from 3 to 9 points indicating limited literacy and a score ranging from 10 to 15 points suggesting adequate literacy. |
The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for each question was 0.87, 0.80, and 0.76. |
| Kazley AS, et al.(22)
|
Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy of Medicine-Transplant (REALM-T) |
It brings 69 words that must be correctly pronounced out loud by patients. Classification: A score between 60 and 69 points to adequate health literacy; a score from 45 to 59 indicates marginal health literacy; and a score equal to or lower than 44 shows inadequate literacy. |
Cronbach’s alpha ≅ 0.94 |
| Kazley AS, et al.(23)
|
Newest Vital Sign (NVS) |
It consists of two medical prescriptions and questions about each one of them, which make patients read, understand, and search for information. Classification: A score between 4 and 6 points to adequate health literacy; a score from 2 to 3 indicates marginal health literacy; and a score equal to 0 or 1 shows inadequate literacy. |
Cronbach’s alpha > 0.76 for the instrument in English and 0.69 for the version in Spanish. |
| Escobedo W, et al.(24)
|
| Kazley AS, et al.(22)
|
Decision-Making Capacity Assessment Tool (DMCAT) |
It has six questions that evaluate the knowledge and understanding of dialysis and the transplantation process. Classification: 3 points per correct answer, with the maximum score equal to 18. Higher scores indicate better knowledge. |
Pearson’s correlation coefficient between 0.56 and 0.73 and acceptable test-retest reliability and reliability between evaluators (0.65). |
| Kazley AS, et al.(23)
|
| Jain D, et al.(25)
|
Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) |
It brings 66 words that must be correctly pronounced out loud by patients. Classification: A score between 60 and 66 points to adequate health literacy; a score from 45 to 59 indicates marginal health literacy; and a score equal to or lower than 44 shows inadequate literacy. |
*It shows a satisfactory correlation with other literacy tests and has high test-retest reliability. |
| Green JA, et al.(26)
|
| Green JA, et al.(27)
|
| Cavanaugh KL, et al.(28)
|
| Lai AY, et al.(29)
|
Functional, Communicative and Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL) |
It has 14 items: five addressing functional literacy (evaluates basic reading and writing skills), five concerning communicative literacy (capacity to extract information from varied media), and four related to critical literacy (capacity to critically evaluate the information about one’s own health). Classification: Likert scale with a score ranging from 1 to 4 (indicating never to often) for each item. The scores of the items in each subscale are summed and the result is shared by the number of items that make up the subscale. Higher scores indicate a higher health literacy level. |
The Cronbach’s alpha for functional, communicative, and critical literacies was 0.84, 0.77, and 0.65, respectively. |
| Brice JH, et al.(30)
|
Single item literacy screener (SILS) |
It consists of a question that assesses the understanding that patients have when they read materials related to their health. Classification: Likert scale varying from 1 to 5, indicating from never to always. Higher scores indicate a higher health literacy level. |
The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.67 (0.60 to 0.74). |
|
Two-item literacy screener (TILS) |
It consists of two questions that evaluate the reading capacity and frequency of different materials. Classification: Likert scale varying from excellent to very bad. |
The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.66 (0.59 to 0.73). |
| Brice JH, et al.(30)
|
Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) |
Patients are asked to choose one out of four options that fits best in the context of a sentence. This part of the instrument has 36 blank spaces to be filled out and aims to assess the reading understanding. The tool also has four cards (medical prescriptions and appointment schedules) that evaluate the numbering capacity. Classification: A score between 23 and 36 is considered adequate health literacy; a score from 17 to 22 indicates marginal health literacy; and a score between 0 and 16 shows inadequate literacy. |
The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.68 for the 36 reading items and 0.97 for the images of the instrument. |
| Adeseun GA(31)
|
